"Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya's borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful -- yet fragile -- transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution's future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.?

Wny not Syria then? OR any number of countries now facing similar repressive regimes and consequences? The credibility of "writ of the UN Security Council" is the reason for this war? Really? Worse than that is the halfassedness of the commitment. Gaddafi must go, but we won't do anything further to have it happen? Let a bloody civil war ensuer?

This is a humanitarian mission?

Nonsense. One can hope a happy ending is at the end of this misadventure, but that would be by pure chance, not because of good strategy.

On the one hand, "some" (and a definite pejorative lilt could be detected in his voice) question why America should intervene at all even in limited ways in this distant land.   On the other hand, "others have suggested that we broaden our military beyond protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Gaddafi.." "But that would be a mistake."

We can stand on the sidelines for forty years, showing how deeply we care by imposing a sanction here and a sanction there, all the while making sure the oil flows and trying not to make eye contact with the victims of oppression.

I wish I didn't have to read speeches where we paint ourselves as humanitarian heroes, beacons of freedom and enlightenment, because after 40 years of brutality, something finally tipped the scales in favor of action.

It was classic Obama.  A professorial speech on a difficult subject with no tag line, no rallying cry, not simple statment that made right and wrong clear.

Ask yourself.  Would Clinton have made a speech like that?  Reagan?   Of course not.   They would take a difficult subject (which Libya is) and find a key point, moment or feeling and use that to sell their policy.

Obama can't do that.  Simple as that.  He lectures and plays the straw man again, and again.  

Works for some people, works on some subjects but last night it didn't.  He just rehashed the same ground and told us to just accept the policy for a myriad of confusing reasons.

(1) If you have WMD, we won't attack you (directly) and will leave you in power to do what you will to your population.  (E.g., Pakistan, Iran)

(2) If you get rid of your WMD, we will attack you and remove you when it suits us, adopting whatever reason we think will sell at the time we decide to go against you. (Especially if you have oil we want to exploit.)  (E.g., Iraq, Libya)

I didn't see a lot of slippery, typical pol, Lyin' Lyndon-like wiggle room in those rather simple and clear pledges, nor did I hear a president like Junior Bush in 2002 and early 2003 whose speeches seemed to betray an eagerness to get a larger war started.

I also view Obama as far more sensitive to and respectful of public opinion on this engagement (more so than LBJ and VN), and so with a re-elect coming up soon for him, he's unlikely to seek another term having to defend broken promises about a Libya action that was supposed to last only days.  

As far as intervening on a humanitarian level, or as Obama stated, cost and benefits, I am against it due to the fragile US economy and all the issues attached; jobs, homes, mortgages, laws, erratic governors, etc.

I am sorry that parts Africa, the Middle East, Asia are living under dictators and/or despots.  I feel bad for them and hope they can fight the fight to get what they think they need. I commend them and wish them luck.

Soon as they were free of soviet menace, the first thing Taliban/Alqaida/mujahids/binladen and co did was to nominate us enemy No1. at that point , USA had done them no harm,only helped and propped them up in-spite of the atrocities they were committing on their own people.

What makes us so sure that we will not repeat the same mistake in Libya. What makes us think these rebels are going to LOVE us for destroying their country from the air. especially after Gaddafi is gone (if he is gone in reasonable time), then the new govt, has to rebuild and reconstruct their civil and political infrastructure with out supervision from the same forces, who invested millions of dollars worth of tomahawk missiles in that country.